Standing on the Side of Love

I am proud to report that there were at least 10 UUCA folks at the vigil this evening at Pack Place in support of LGBT rights and against the ridiculous idea of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages. There are two very wrong things about that. First of course is the singling out of people based on whom they love, but second is the abuse of a constitution.

I'm against the amendment and I'm letting State Sen. Apodaca know it.

Solemnity & Fun

Yesterday was the kind of day where you're glad you belong to a congregation. What a lucky thing that the 10th anniversary of 9-11 landed on a Sunday. That made it perfectly normal to head to church and join MY community to remember the awful day, celebrate the day after (everyone in the world was an American that day--remember?), play and commemorate. If you missed the picnic after church, I'm sorry. It was about the loveliest little thing you can imagine: about 80 folks, just a block N of the church, plenty of shade, a tent and tables set up for those who simply could not bear the thought of eating without a table in front of him/her (I am married to a person like that), games for children and a most amazing sound system to convey the music (congregational singing accompanied by Lenora and led by Nana Hosmer) and the words (Mark led with commentary and stories by David Novak). I'm sure everyone's favorite was the spiral "dance" led by Benette. It was nice to see our full ministry staff (Mark, Lisa, Benette, Lenora) all there, leading and enjoying the event. (Giant thanks to Stan Nachman for this one!) Later in the day, I attended the interfaith Service of Remembrance and Hope at First Baptist Church. It was great to see Lisa Kemper already actively participating in the life of Asheville as she joined a flock of other religious leaders in commemorating 9-11, each in her/his own faith tradition. So we had our UU, the rabbis, the priest, the college chaplain, the witch, the Islamist, the Baptist and the Christian who witnessed her faith by reading relevant quotes of Jesus.... It was beautifully interfaith. And, it was the kick-off event for the Asheville Listening Project, a coalition of individuals from widely-different backgrounds united in the belief that it's time for us to listen to another. "We believe that receptive and respectful listening can help to bridge our divisions and create possibilities to work together for a better community." I'm joining!

More on Policy Governance

You didn't think I would ignore policy governance once I got to the presidency, did you? There has been an interesting conversation lately on the UU Policy Governance listserv. Here are a few excerpts that I want to keep track of and figured I would be able to find them here. And you can find them, too!

From Rev. Richard Speck, District Executive, Joseph Priestley District:

In creating the Ends for a church the whole congregation is involved in lifting up the major values that the Ends represent. A PG board always takes its work back to the membership to ascertain that it is representing the whole correctly in discerning the Ends.

Volunteerism and lay participation in the carrying out of the Ends through the programs and services is linked to the members understanding their role in making the values stated as Ends the reality of the congregation. So the whole membership helps to create the Ends and the whole congregation is responsible for making them real. How is that a diminishment through Policy
Governance?

As to the whole congregation deciding how a board should manage and govern, up until Policy Governance came along, no congregation in my 21 years of ministry and 11 years of UUA service had ever held a vote on how the board should govern itself and the congregation. Only because the model is so different from previous governance models do people feel they need to have input on what the board does. Boards do a disservice when they do not educate a congregation about the model, the advantages and changes, and the reasoning for choosing it. But they do not need congregational approval to use it.

I hope that these paragraphs help you to see Policy Governance in a new way and clarify for you how it should work.

And then, from Margaret Keip (quasi-retired UU minister, and church PG consultant):

The paradigm shift of governance change to PG is significant, especially in relation to power. We're used to power as a zero-sum factor in everyday life -- i.e. when someone gains more power, someone else has lost some. PG embodies incremental power -- the more people power there is, the more there is in the system, available to use wisely and well, if we will. PG imbues more power in both the board, the executive (solo or team), and the congregation -- each focused within boundaries that are ethical and prudent and support the organization's reason for being (mission, in a congregation). It reflects our UU values as clearly as a mirror, when its truly understood and experienced.

My GA Favorite: Rev. Galen Guengerich

The Rev. Galen Guengerich of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City (the church that Taryn Strauss will be serving this year) spoke at two workshops, both addressing the religious aspects, or lack thereof, of Unitarian Universalist congregations. One wonderful thing he is doing for his congregation is providing them with the opportunity for a daily common spiritual practice.

There is a several hundred-year old spiritual practice called lectio divina or divine reading. It is a way of ritually reading the Bible and reflecting on it. He has modified the practice for UUs and sends out an email every day with a brief reading. So far, none of them have been from the Bible. Here's how he describes it:

The purpose: a daily spiritual practice to help spark our moral imagination and set our moral compass as individuals (Emerson called it “provocative reading”). It can also help establish a common spiritual conversation that will further unite us as a community of faith.

The practice: sit comfortably and take a few deep breaths to remind your body that it’s time to focus—any time of day (as short or long as you like), anywhere you have time to yourself.

1. Reading: read the day’s text carefully several times, preferably aloud.

2. Reflection: ask yourself which word or phrase provokes your attention. Why that word or that phrase? You may wish to jot the word or phrase in a journal. Reflect for a short time on the word or phrase and ponder what it evokes in you. Make a note or two.

3. Intention: ask yourself what purpose your reading and reflection suggests for you on this day. Set a specific intention that you can reasonably fulfill. Perhaps jot it down.

4. Contemplation: expand your awareness from intention to gratitude. Remind yourself that the world is full of untapped wisdom and your life is full of unrealized potential. Note a couple of things for which you’re especially grateful.

If you wish, end your practice with the final two lines of the All Souls benediction: “This is the day we are given; let us rejoice and be glad in it.”

I have been doing this (well, most of it most of the time) every day since I returned from GA. My best friend is also doing it. If lots of UUCA people did it, we'd begin to have common readings that we might refer to in conversations with each other. If you want to get in on the practice, sign up on the All Souls website.

How cool is THAT?

OK, I admit, I haven't checked in for a while (been kind of busy I guess).  Upon arrival I discovered a comment by the actual Dan Hotchkiss.  Eesh.  Now I have to really THINK before I write.  Thanks for reading, Dan!  (Of course, now I am busted.  Dan knows HIS system and what we were doing were all mixed up.  Hope I didn't insult you, she writes rather sheepishly.)

Executive, Board and Finance Committee

Another tidbit picked up at the Large Church Conference:  Unity-Unitarian and Dallas are the two UU congregations who are working closest to Carver (which remember, is not designed for congregational polity churches) and have been doing it for over 10 years.  So, we posed the question, "Where does the Finance Committee fall in a church/Carver system?"

As we know, Hotchkiss (who is not Carver, remember?) keeps the basic organizational chart that we use.  And from reading Carver, we know that all the money dealings reside on the Executive side of the equation, meaning that any committee needed to help out in checking/advising on monetary issues will be an Executive committee (often called a Ministry Team to note that it is part of the Ministry or program side of the church).

As for the Board, it HAS to develop a monitoring policy that assures the Board that if they conduct the monitoring as written, they are confident that they are fulfilling their fiduciary role as a Board.  If everyone on the Board is not secure in that outcome, then the policy is not sufficient.  It is also possible that the Board could appoint its own committee to help with this monitoring (often called a Task Force), though it cannot delegate the fiduciary responsibility that it holds.

So what do Unity and Dallas do?  Unity for sure puts their version of a Finance Committee on the Executive side because they put all money oversight on the Executive side.  That's right, all of it.  Dallas puts all on the Executive side except the Endowment Fund.

The case to be made by Carver is that it's inappropriate to hand over accountability for programming to the Executive but keep the money on the Board side.  Monitoring and assessment should assure the Board that all is well.  I expect Hotchkiss doesn't do this because it makes UUs highly uncomfortable to give over everything to the Executive side.

We have no idea what we're going to do yet, though sooner or later it HAS to be decided.

Large Church Conference--Governance Part 3/Cycle

Ran out of writing time while in Minneapolis.  (The previous blog was written there, but posted today.)  But, I'm back to the project at hand now.....

One of the more enlightening (and daunting) slides that the folks from Unity-Unitarian* used was an oval showing the cycle of governance steps that are make up Policy Governance.  I can't show it as a circle here, but the steps are:

Articulation - identify core values, mission and Ends
     Accomplished by Board and Congregation in collaboration with Executive
Interpretation - transform the wording of the Ends Statements to operational, measurable statements and propose a reasonable way to measure results
     Accomplished by the Executive in collaboration with Board
Planning and Design of Programs/Projects - creatively design ways to produce the Ends
     Accomplished by Executive and all those invited to join this process (staff and volunteers)
Implementation - execute programs and projects that produce Ends,
     Accomplished by Executive and all paid staff and volunteers
Assessment - review results, gain insights, ask new questions that lead to further Articulation (step one)
     Accomplished by Board in collaboration with Executive

We knew (in the backs of our minds) that this was the process, but since we know we're mired in Articulation at the moment (while the congregation is still running effectively), it was a little scary to see how much more we need to tackle.   Since we are acting as if we are doing full Policy Governance as a test, the Executive is planning, designing and implementing programs and projects (most obviously in the adult education area), but with no chance of being able to measure results compared to interpreted Ends (because we didn't do any of the "Interpretation" step this year) we don't actually know how we're doing yet.

So, as chair of the Governance Task Force, I've decided to speed up the Articulation step so that we can at least Interpret one or two Ends before Rev. Ward goes on sabbatical.  Consequently, you should be hearing about our new Ends statements by mid-April (I hope).








*Unity-Unitarian is a UU church in St. Paul, MN that is very much a leader in Policy Governance in congregations.  They and Dallas have been at it the longest, and Unity has been VERY generous in sharing their insights.  They have also created a non-profit consulting business to help other congregations along the Policy Governance path.  I have no doubt that we will be making use of their expertise at some point.

Large Church Conference--Governance Part 2

Today I am attending all four sessions about Policy Governance that are being led by members of Unity-Unitarian Church in St. Paul, MN.  I've been to two of the session so far and here's what I learned:

The point of Policy Governance is to align decision-making with the core intentions of religious life.

Best practices used by congregations that are enjoying success in Policy Governance:

• Get help
• Aim for "good enough" and plan how to get better
• Create a transition plan
• Work to develop trust and patience
• Patience, patience, patience

There are four phases when changing to Policy Governance:

1. Casting the Vision (12-18 months)
2. Building the System (1-2 years)
3. Engaging the System (2-4 years)
4. Living Your Vision (on and on)

UUCA is in Phase 2, having based the initial work on the recently completed Strategic Plan and development of the Mission Statement.

One thing for sure I'm learning is that we are doing pretty darn well!  Our work with our Ends Statements is appropriate, our "trial period" is a great idea, our plan to make bylaw changes at the end of the trial period was widely admired (meaning that we "act" like we're using Policy Governance but whenever there's a conflict, we meet the requirements of the relevant bylaw), we are working harder with more clarity than most other congregations in this phase.  I don't exactly want to brag, but....well, yes I do.  Hurray for us!!!

Large Church Conference--Governance Part 1

Hi!

I'm at the UU Large Church Conference in Minneapolis, MN and the theme of this year's conference (it is held only once every three years) is Governance and Ministry.  I can't decide if that's a lucky coincidence or some kind of punishment.  Oh well.....

Yesterday's presentations were all by Dan Hotchkiss.  Good news was that he was talking very generally about governance issues and not referring to his book at all (because as you know, we were already confused once by the Hotchkiss/Carver similarities).  I didn't pick up a lot of "takeaways" from these sessions (though they were interesting and educational in setting context for our work) but I DID like his notion that all this work on governance has one basic goal; to make our congregations  better servants of our purposes and better models of our principles.

Another idea that I hadn't fully developed for myself was that a church's governance structure should not be about replicating itself, or keeping itself in business, but about designing for tomorrow, moving us toward a deeper engagement with our spiritual selves and the world.

As we struggle in the Governance Task Force and the Board to improve the Governance Document that we borrowed as our starting place and continue to move the system toward Policy Governance, we always need to remember that the point of it all is to lead us closer and closer to the answer to this question:  How has belonging to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville changed your life?

Ends Statements and Allocating Resources

Today we had a great meeting of the Governance Task Force (we meet nearly every week).  We began talking about continuing the rewriting of our Ends Statements.  Last week we wrote a Level One Ends Statement that should cover everything we do here at UUCA.  Carver says that EVERY Ends Statement must include Results (impact, difference, change, benefit, outcome), Recipients (the population to receive the Results) and Costs (monetary expense or relative priority).  Here's what the Board agreed was an acceptable Level One Ends Statement:

The people who participate in the life of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville embody the values of Unitarian Universalism, effectively using all resources of the congregation.

When we write Level Two Ends Statements which will help further guide the Executive, we need those three components.  Which brought us smack up against the problem of allocating resources (that is the way the Board/Governance Document will set priorities for the Executive).  Because, as Carver predicted, we don't have enough information!

Almost immediately we moved from thinking of resources as money and recognizing that in a congregation, Resources = Money (assets and staff) + In-kind contributions of people who participate in the life of the congregation.  These contributions include donations of TIME plus donations of THINGS.  And then there loomed the first innocent question:  So how do we allocate our resources now?  Hmmmm....

So, our next steps will happen in tandem.  The Task Force members will individually come up with a set of Level Two Ends Statements while the staff works in the background to try to guesstimate the full extent of our resources (probably ignoring donations of THINGS for now).

It is a very interesting thing to think about.  Immediately, when you define Resources this broadly, you intuitively note that lifespan religious education takes up the largest segment of the congregation's resources.  Then, you might also notice that Resources, though not unlimited, are extremely expandable. For instance, prior to Rev. York's revival of the caring activities that can be done by lay members, there was a much smaller allocation of our Resources to that area.  Without stopping any other programming, we ADDED a very effective lay pastoral ministry.  How about that!

Stay tuned.....

Those Negative Policies

When we have presented the basics of policy-based governance to members of the congregation, many, many of you noted your discomfort with the use of negative statements when delineating the limitations for the Executive (in the Governance Document for those of you who have lost track).  In the book, Reinventing Your Board, the Carvers say this:

Even when board members understand the theoretical reasons, it is common in implementation for boards to question the principle that staff means [what the staff does] be controlled by the board through the use of negatively worded or proscriptive policies.  A frequently voiced concern is that the language (The CEO shall not cause or allow...") is awkward and is unacceptably negative in tone.  [Hey, have they been attending our meetings?]  While we are sympathetic to the complaint of awkwardness, we urge boards to notice that while proscriptive policies are verbally negative, they are psychologically very positive to the recipient.  The message received is, "So long as you do not do these few proscribed things, anything else will have our support."  This is the same as the board's preapproving any action of the CEO that is not in violation of the board's stated criteria about unacceptable means.

The Carvers further advise:  "Constraining language allows greater empowerment.  Get used to the awkwardness; it's worth it."

 

Determining Moral Ownership

Now that we know we’re following the Carver form of policy governance, modifying the system where we feel congregational polity requires it, we’re back to getting our governing documents in order.

As you know, we already have a Governance Document that we are using as a guide this year, but we have always known that as we progress through the year we would find places to modify, tighten, omit, change or add to it.  We decided that the place to start is, well, at the beginning.  And the first question to answer (which seems kind of obvious) is, on whose behalf does the board work? 

Carver makes a very definite distinction between stakeholders and moral owners.  At our last board meeting, we brainstormed a very long list of potential stakeholders.  They included members and friends, of course, but also such entities as past and future Unitarians and Universalists, children in our religious education programs, our mission statement (this is the moral owner that Hotchkiss recommends), all people in the Asheville area who share our mission, people we serve in our social justice programs, etc.  However, the designation of a “moral owner” is something more focused.

Carver notes, “The concept of ‘moral ownership’ isolates the various stakeholders to whom the board owes its primary allegiance.  A board cannot carry out its responsibilities without determining exactly whom the ownership includes and how they can be heard.” (page 17 of Boards that Make a Difference)

Carver again, “The Policy Governance model takes as its starting point the principle that a governing board is accountable for the organization it governs and that it exists on behalf of a larger group of persons who, either legally or morally, own the organization…The principle forces the board to consider and answer the questions, From whom do we obtain our authority? And, To whom are we accountable.  This is no easy task but is a necessary one, and it demands that the board distinguish theoretically between owners and stakeholders, particularly customers.” (pp 17-18 of Reinventing Your Board)

Of course, UU congregations have a mashup of members and “customers,” and we already noticed that Hotchkiss likes to use the mission as the moral owner.  So though the question of “To whom is the board accountable?” seems like it might have an obvious answer, we have been doing quite a bit of work in trying to get phrasing that feels right to us.

Therefore, stay tuned as we work out this most foundational piece of policy governance.

By the way, the UUA is also using Policy Governance and here’s their list of moral owners, which they have modified to be their “sources of authority and accountability” rather than moral owners:

1.  Our member congregations

2.  Current and future generations of Unitarian Universalists

3.  The heritage, traditions, and ideals of Unitarian Universalism

4.  The vision of Beloved Community

5.  The Spirit of life, love, and the holy

Ah Hah!!!!

Well, a lot has happened since I last checked in.  Most importantly, we figured out why were having trouble with our Ends Statements.  Turns out that we were mixing up our governance gurus.

As I originally said, we were following Dan Hotchkiss's ideas about governance as posited in his book, Governance and Ministry.  He basically suggests that church boards, especially those churches governed by congregational polity, move more toward a governance system that has the board dealing more at the policy level, leaving the ministry team to do the actual work.  Hotchkiss is quite vague on how this might actually look in action, though he does suggest that the Board develop a policy book and move the congregation forward through strategic planning processes and short-term goal-setting that he terms "Vision of Ministry."

Alas, Hotchkiss makes no reference to a governance document, or Ends Statements, or Executive Limitations or anything else that we have so carefully instructed the congregation about.  All these ideas come from John and Miriam Carver.  Their first book, published in 1990 (Boards That Make a Difference), lays out these concepts as they target governance in nonprofit organizations.

Churches are nonprofit organizations, but they are different than most because they include ministers who are not CEOs and members who are also the beneficiaries of the nonprofit's work.  That's why Hotchkiss developed his system.

However, as a Board, turns out we like a lot of what the Carvers say.  And, we, perhaps mistakenly at the time, adopted their ideas as we developed our governing document.  But now that we've done that, and we realize what we've done, we prefer to follow Carver.  So, I have added Carvers' books as other reference materials.  All Board members (as of this coming meeting) have copies of the 2006 book, Reinventing Your Board: A Step-by-Step Guide to Implementing Policy Governance by the Carvers and will be working hard to keep us on the policy governance path.

One of the things that the Carvers emphasize for "regular" nonprofits is the strong role of the CEO.  A UU church is NOT the same as "regular" nonprofits so we will all be on the lookout for those places where we need to modify Carver to make sense in our situation.

One thing I'd like to point out is that this is hard work.  Not just for me (though that is also true) but for all of us involved in the governance and operation of the church.  Please be sure to thank your board members and all paid staff for their amazing work on all of this!  (Especially Kay Aler-Maida, Michael Vavrek, Mike Horak, Ed Jenest, Marilyn Martin and Mark Ward.)